VH-MKQ Cessna 172 Accident, Agfest, Tasmania

[kaz3g]

I reckon the nosewheel probably didn't respond well to being used to break through the fences and that gap at the lower rear end of the cowl is symptomatic of a wrinkle in the firewall.

 

It also seems to me that he may have been a fair way down the strip when he started skidding and had insufficient room to effect a go-around.

 

Kaz

 

 

[David Isaac]

A short field technique approach in a 172 is very effective especially with the ones that still have the 40 degree flap capability 58 knots at MTOW, less as Potts said with only 1 POB. (not as good as the Auster though with a short field approach at 40 knots ). Landing into a short strip requires a good spot landing technique. If it becomes evident you are going to land too far in, then go around before the wheels touch until you can get it on the right spot. A C172 responds well to a go around (especially with only 1 POB), as long as you go back immediately to 20 degrees of flap. You shouldn't need aggressive braking unless the strip is really short and if it is, and the grass is wet ... think again ... can I stop before the end?

 

 

[tecman]

Just wondering, how do you get an upside down aircraft back on it's wheels without causing any further damage?

 

Jeff.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very little chance of retracting the gear by mistake

You don't seem 100% confident; just have to teach yourself not to fiddle with the oxy torch while landing.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Just wondering, how do you get an upside down aircraft back on it's wheels without causing any further damage?Jeff.

If you have a crane it is not so difficult. I have seen it done with a 4wd at Cessnock and it wasn't pretty, but she was totalled anyway. Without a crane you will cause more damage, usually to one wing tip.

 

 

[facthunter]

Think I would lift it by what's left of the nosewheel or the lower part of the engine mount,and remove the wings. You are going to have to do that to take it anywhere, anyhow. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Its easier to remove the wings tail and engine while it is inverted.

 

 

[metalman]

Its easier to remove the wings tail and engine while it is inverted.

And if it's in a paddock ,alot less scary

Matty

 

 

[Oscar]

Recovery and movement of aircraft other than sitting on their own wheels is something that needs to be done (where possible, obviously) with very considerable care and the input of expert knowledge.

 

I've been repairing over several years a Jab that played 'dead ants' after an EFATO; apart from the broken fin replacement, the major repair work was a result of inexpert recovery techniques, where lifting apparatus was allowed to load the airframe in ways it was never designed to handle, cracking the 'glass on the fuselage. And Jabs are bloody tough, so someone did something in a really ham-fisted way.

 

I've moved quite a few interesting aircraft in bits around the countryside on trucks / trailers, from a Victa from East Sale to Brisbane and back, to several Sea Furies, a Messerschmidt 262, A Kittyhawk, a Mosquito bomber, a Zero, my own Jab Sydney-Toowomba - Caloundra and return, bits of a B-25, Canberra bomber, Meteor, the Ultrabat Toowoomba - Bundaberg, some others I can't recall instantly. All without damage.

 

The critical thing for doing such movement is to make damn sure the loads are carried on bits of the aircraft that are designed to handle those loads. Often, you need a decent spreader bar to do the lifting, you cannot just throw a sling around something. Then, the tie-down points on the transport need careful consideration, as does the location of padding etc.

 

If all you are doing is removing a totalled aircraft from a difficult site e.g. to clear a busy airstrip, then time is of the essence and further damage is probably both unavoidable and basically collateral to the accident. However, if you have the 'luxury' of taking a bit of time, getting expert advice and if necessary fabricating stuff to do the job properly, you will save yourself later grief (aka money in repairs..).

 

 

[facthunter]

Including IF it is submerged, let the water drain from it before lifting out of the water. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I think that there were maybe a couple of "Cruel" comments in the preceding posts, and have to feel for the Pilot in command of this machine,. . . the scuttlebut hasn't shown ACCURATELY what the conditions were at the incident time, ie, air temp / wind direction & velocity / density altitude, speed of the aircraft upon arrival / condition of the strip, . . . . I admit that this puzzles me, having "Some" hours on the 172, which is a lovely aircraft in a lot of respects, and having landed them myself daylight and darkness on all sorts of strips, . . . .I was obviously luckier that the pilot of this one. . . . WELL,. . . if there is to be an official investigation of the accident, it will be good to read the outcome . . . .as I've said before, in the UK the AAIB produce a wonderfully detailed report on incidents such as this one, and pilots / interested enthusiasts. . . can learn a lot from the minute detail included in the reports.

 

I have no Idea why the pilot had a bad day with this one, but let's give him the benefit of any doubt until the report is finalized, and then, perhaps you can barbecue the poor bloke later. . . .OR NOT as the case may be. ( There but for good fortune and the grace of the creator Go we. . . . ? )

 

 

[alf jessup]

I think that there were maybe a couple of "Cruel" comments in the preceding posts, and have to feel for the Pilot in command of this machine,. . .I have no Idea why the pilot had a bad day with this one, but let's give him the benefit of any doubt until the report is finalized, and then, perhaps you can barbecue the poor bloke later. . . .OR NOT as the case may be. ( There but for good fortune and the grace of the creator Go we. . . . ? )

Phil,

 

I am with you can't crucify the bloke, bet he didn't wake up in the morning with the thought, "Hmmmm I might just put the Cessna through 2 fences & lay her on her back to give the belly a sun tan today".

 

He had a bad day because he was human as the rest of us are, error of judgment, brain fart, whatever, he is human and humans make mistakes and no one is infallible from doing the same.

 

Upside is he is alive and the plane is bent, I bet he will not suffer the same fate as he should learn from this, as should the rest of us because that is how the world works.

 

Things happen and it is up to the rest of us to learn something from them but sadly that is not the case as we are all infallible and it only happens to someone else, as the statistics show us any ones surname can change to someone else at the blink of a bad decision or lack of concentration at a critical stage.

 

Alf

 

 

[Rotorwork]

Just wondering, how do you get an upside down aircraft back on it's wheels without causing any further damage?Jeff.

Hook it on a long line, take it up to 10 000 feet, over runway,

make sure the pilot has a chute on,

 

let her go,

 

if she glides land it.

 

If she doesn't,

 

bail out.

 

R W:rotary:

 

 

[planedriver]

And if it was your 172 that suffered this unfortunate fate Rotorwork, I wonder if you would appreciate some of these comments?

 

It's not really something we should be joking about anothers misfortune, just because we're not directly involved.

 

I feel sorry for the poor PIC, glad he walked away unscathed, and hope he and others manage to learn something positive from it.

 

We should all hopefully learn something from these incidents,and display a little empathy.

 

None of us are 100% immune from things going belly up, as hard as we may try.

 

 

[Teckair]

And if it was your 172 that suffered this unfortunate fate Rotorwork, I wonder if you would appreciate some of these comments?It's not really something we should be joking about anothers misfortune, just because we're not directly involved.

I feel sorry for the poor PIC, glad he walked away unscathed, and hope he and others manage to learn something positive from it.

 

We should all hopefully learn something from these incidents,and display a little empathy.

 

None of us are 100% immune from things going belly up, as hard as we may try.

There have been some inappropriate comments about the missing passenger jet which I thought would have been more of a concern.

 

 

[planedriver]

There have been some inappropriate comments about the missing passenger jet which I thought would have been more of a concern.

I agree with you Teckair, but they are all of concern and more so to some than others.

It's a bit like saying "don't worry that you hurt yourself, I never felt a thing"

 

 

[M61A1]

I think that there were maybe a couple of "Cruel" comments in the preceding posts, and have to feel for the Pilot in command of this machine,. . . the scuttlebut hasn't shown ACCURATELY what the conditions were at the incident time, ie, air temp / wind direction & velocity / density altitude, speed of the aircraft upon arrival / condition of the strip, . . . . I admit that this puzzles me, having "Some" hours on the 172, which is a lovely aircraft in a lot of respects, and having landed them myself daylight and darkness on all sorts of strips, . . . .I was obviously luckier that the pilot of this one. . . . WELL,. . . if there is to be an official investigation of the accident, it will be good to read the outcome . . . .as I've said before, in the UK the AAIB produce a wonderfully detailed report on incidents such as this one, and pilots / interested enthusiasts. . . can learn a lot from the minute detail included in the reports.I have no Idea why the pilot had a bad day with this one, but let's give him the benefit of any doubt until the report is finalized, and then, perhaps you can barbecue the poor bloke later. . . .OR NOT as the case may be. ( There but for good fortune and the grace of the creator Go we. . . . ? )

I doubt that there's any of us who wouldn't be thinking "well I'm glad it wasn't me", and feeling a bit for the poor bugger in what appears a very embarrassing situation. Generally though, it is the "Australian way", to make light of any situation, and for the most part none of it will be particularly nasty.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Right on M6... and If i had done that I can really imagine the smart ass comments on here that even I would get a laugh at. It has its roots in that Australian larrakin spirit, and we wouldn't want it any other way.

 

 

[poteroo]

Notwithstanding the need to not offend anyone with our comments, we need to keep this all in perspective. An aircraft is damaged - we should feel free to speculate on the causes, but do it in an uncritical way. There are always some good, sound aviation principles discussed, which in general, provides pilots with information which may save them from a future accident. Lets' not be too precious - or the whole purpose of full, free and robust discussion is going to be lost.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Oscar]

In all seriousness, a better understanding of the potential problems with recovery that cause additional damage to aircraft that have ended up inverted is worth the discussion.

 

We should all be aware that insurance premiums are calculated on the basis of profit to the insurance company on pay-outs vs. premiums over the 'pool' of premiums. If the cost of repair of an aircraft is inflated by post-crash damage due to inept recovery, everybody's premium rises. In the case of my own aircraft , the insurance assessment was that is was a write-off with a small residual salvage value only. (My co-owner and I purchased it as a 'basket case' from someone who had purchased it from the Insurance Company for salvage value; we had the skills and motivation to return it to the air).

 

Having assessed the actual damage, it was evident that the damage incurred from a really unenlightened recovery effort was in all probability the tipping factor in it being written-off vs. repaired. To be realistic, a full-commercial-cost repair effort done by suitably approved persons says that the Insurance assessment was correct. I would estimate - based on the work we have done - that the additional damage done by a ham-fisted recovery effort has taken in realistic terms about $6 - $8K of materials and (mostly) time at L2 rates, when the necessity for a Part 21M engineer to develop a repair scheme is included. Admittedly, this is for a 55-reg aircraft that must meet specific standards. I assume that for a 19-reg or VH-exp. aircraft, the the builder can just do what he or she considers appropriate. For non-exp VH reg aircraft, it has to be kosher or nothing.

 

One way or another, if the recovery of your aircraft causes additional damage to that incurred in the initial accident, you - and the rest of the insured aircraft community - are going to meet an increased insurance bill. It is absolutely worth trying to ensure that no additional damage to that first incurred happens in the recovery phase.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

You have to watch the recovery operators that work for the insurance company. During the recovery of a N24 Nomad that did a gear up arrival they refused to use the 4 lift points that are normally used when the aircraft is fitted to floats and of course this type of situation. Instead they used two slings and caused a heap of damage to the under and side skins. Ended up resulting in the write off due to the extra cost to repair.